FedCircuitBlog

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Teradata Corp. v. SAP SE, an antitrust case. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing tying and trade secret claims. This is our argument recap.

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential orders, three transferring cases to other courts and two dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the transfers and one of the dismissals and a link to the other dismissals.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article and a blog post discussing potential impact of the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in a trademark case decided by the Federal Circuit;
• a blog post highlighting “five tips for IPR practice” in light of the Federal Circuit’s ruling in a precedential case regarding inter partes review; and
• an article about the impact on attorney fee motions after the Federal Circuit’s decision in a patent case dealing with attorney fees and non-taxable costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case addressing obviousness. The court also released three nonprecedential opinions, one in a patent case and two in pro se veterans cases. Additionally, the court released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in DiMasi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, a vaccine case. In it, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by the Court of Federal Claims that a “Special Master’s denial of relief from judgment was not an abuse of discretion.” Notably, after the pro se petitioner filed informal briefs, the court issued an order appointing two attorneys to serve jointly as amicus curiae in support of the pro se petitioner’s appeal and scheduled oral argument. Judges Moore, Prost, and Taranto heard the argument, and this is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in City of Wilmington v. United States, a Clean Water Act case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the Court of Federal Claims that the City of Wilmington was not entitled to recover “the payment of reasonable service charges” assessed for “the control and abatement of water pollution” and interest pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1323. This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case addressing co-inventorship. The court also released four nonprecedential opinions, one in a patent case and three in pro se cases. Additionally, the court released five nonprecedential orders granting summary affirmance and an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the judgment, summary affirmances, and the erratum.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• two articles discussing the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case decided by the Federal Circuit; and
• an article and a blog post providing updates on the ongoing investigation into Judge Newman’s fitness to serve as a judge.

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions: one in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and one in a tax case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also released eight nonprecedential orders: one summarily affirming a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction by the Court of Federal Claims, two transferring cases to other circuit courts, one deactivating and dismissing appeals, and four dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The Court granted the petition for certiorari in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case raising a question related to the First Amendment. While no new petitions were filed with the Court, the Court requested a response to a petition raising a question concerning patent eligibility; a waiver of right to respond was filed in a pro se case; a reply brief was filed in a veterans case; and a supplemental brief was filed in a patent case raising a question concerning inter partes review estoppel. Here are the details.